UDN著名的「標題殺人法」連紐約時報都不放過。好比說，Sulzberger的那篇專訪明明是一個「展望未來轉變」的風向球，到了UDN編輯手上不但成了死亡筆記本，甚至還被扭曲原意。
對我而言，這篇專訪有趣的地方不在於「傳統報業是否死亡或部落格化」（誰上NYT還要看到像部落格那麼散漫的書寫方式？），而在於當中一小段關於「編輯室整併問題」的問答：
這是專業（討論區這種小事就丟給digg吧）。而且這正是Sulzberger敢說：
Sulzberger很有自信地說：
[站外閱讀]
[站內相關]
對我而言，這篇專訪有趣的地方不在於「傳統報業是否死亡或部落格化」（誰上NYT還要看到像部落格那麼散漫的書寫方式？），而在於當中一小段關於「編輯室整併問題」的問答：
The New York Times recently merged its print and online news desks. Did it go smoothly, or were there ruffled feathers? Which team is leading the way today?當然，Sulzberger沒說那個該被記者抓穩的概念到底是什麼（不知道是不是「參與式新聞媒體」這概念？）。但我們可以想像，當「紙本」與「網路化」（不只是電子化）其實是兩種不同的「媒介」、服膺兩種不同的編輯邏輯時，「編輯室整併」這項工作的困難度與重要性遠超過「把內容放上網路、弄個GOOGLE AD、開放個討論區」；因為這是整個報社對於「新聞意義」與「工作流程」的重新界定。
"You know what a newspaper's news desk is like? It's like the emergency room at a hospital, or an office in the military. Both organizations are very goal-oriented, and both are very hard to change," Sulzberger says.
Once change begins, it happens quickly, so the transition was difficult, he says. "But once the journalists grasped the concept, they flipped and embraced it, and supported the move." That included veteran managers, too.
這是專業（討論區這種小事就丟給digg吧）。而且這正是Sulzberger敢說：We are curators, curators of news. People don't click onto the New York Times to read blogs. They want reliable news that they can trust這句話的原因。因為，不管討論區爭論多熱、部落格文章多多元，一個時間有限的讀者總是想找一個「有公信力」的媒體了解某個事件的梗概，而當大多數沒有自我組織能力的部落客其實仍是跟在新聞媒體設定的議題後頭打轉（還記得有多少人看著TIME的封面傻笑嗎？）時，傳統報業的「反擊」實在是不容小覷啊。
Sulzberger很有自信地說：
"Once upon a time, people had to read the paper to find out what was going on in theater. Today there are hundreds of forums and sites with that information," he says. "But the paper can integrate material from bloggers and external writers. We need to be part of that community and to have dialogue with the online world."相較之下，台灣的新聞媒體不再有公信力、部落格圈也沒有具公信力的作者、公民新聞也僅止於書空咄咄。實在是讓人感到無力啊。
[站外閱讀]
[站內相關]
Comments